ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2025
Artificial intelligence and patient education.
Review in Current opinion in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice and hospitals].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Gemini 1.5 Flash provides the most reliable content while ChatGPT-4o offers the highest readability for patient education on meniscal tears.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Factors associated with the experience of AI tools for creating health education materials: cross-sectional study using an extended UTAUT model.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT-5 educate the public about vasectomy?: a Google Trends-based expert panel assessment.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality evaluation of AI-generated diabetes-related health education texts from different generative models.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewArtificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used as a source of information. Our objective was to review the literature on their use for patient education in urology. RECENT
findingsThere are many published studies examining the quality of AI chatbots, most commonly ChatGPT. In many studies, responses from chatbots had acceptable accuracy but were written at a difficult reading level without specific prompts to enhance readability. A few studies have examined AI chatbots for other types of patient education, such as creating lay summaries of research publications or generating handouts. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence chatbots may provide an adjunctive source of patient education in the future, particularly if prompted to provide results with better readability. In addition, they may be used to rapidly generate lay research summaries, leaflets or other patient education materials for final review by experts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.